(SS) Repnicke v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:16-cv-01225

Plaintiff Michael Repnicke applied for SSI on August 17, 2012, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2001; application was denied and he requested a hearing before an ALJ.
The ALJ held a hearing (plaintiff testified telephonically), found several severe impairments (cardiac history, spinal degenerative disease, right shoulder strain, asthma, right-eye blindness, bipolar disorder, substance issues in remission), and assessed an RFC for a range of light work with specific physical and visual limits and no more than simple, routine tasks.
The ALJ found no past relevant work, determined at Step 5 that jobs exist in significant numbers the claimant can perform (relying on a Vocational Expert), and denied benefits; the Appeals Council denied review.
Plaintiff challenged only the ALJ’s reliance on the VE testimony, arguing the VE’s job identifications conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the ALJ failed to resolve those conflicts per controlling Ninth Circuit precedent.
The ALJ asked whether VE testimony was consistent with the DOT and the VE said yes; the VE identified Palletizer, Garment Sorter, and Packer Operator as suitable jobs.
The district court reviewed the record for substantial evidence and legal error and concluded any supposed DOT conflicts were not obvious/apparent or were reconcilable, so the ALJ did not err; the Commissioner’s denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ erred by relying on VE testimony that conflicted with the DOT without eliciting an explanation	Repnicke: VE’s testimony conflicted with DOT on exposure to machinery, visual acuity/depth perception, and frequent reaching	Berryhill: VE testified consistency with DOT; alleged differences are not obvious conflicts or are reconcilable with the RFC limits	Court: No harmful error — conflicts were not obvious/apparent or were not actual conflicts; VE testimony was permissible and supported substantial evidence

Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: district court reviews Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence and legal error)
Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must inquire about and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (a difference between VE testimony and the DOT must be obvious or apparent to constitute a conflict)
Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (Commissioner bears burden at Step 5 to identify jobs existing in significant numbers that claimant can perform)
McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (if record as a whole can reasonably support either result, court must affirm Commissioner)